Additional Materials:

Contact:

A firm requested reconsideration of a decision which dismissed as untimely a protest concerning an agency's rejection of the firm's bid for an automated lithograph system. The firm's protest had been dismissed as untimely by GAO because it was received more than 10 working days after the protester was advised by telephone that its price was too high for continued negotiations. In its request for reconsideration, the protester: (1) argued that the adverse agency action relayed to it by telephone was never confirmed by written notice; (2) objected to GAO computing the time for filing a protest from the date of the telephone call without obtaining a documented report on the matter; (3) argued that its initial protest to GAO would have been timely except for a delivery delay by Western Union which should make the protest valid under the good cause exception to bid protest procedures; and (4) alleged that it was unfairly treated by the agency because other bidders were allowed to revise their proposals. GAO does not request documented reports on untimely bid protests, since no useful purpose would be served by doing so. If the protester wished to protest on the basis of its bid rejection by telephone, it did not have the option of waiting for written confirmation. Western Union's failure to properly transmit the protest telegram to GAO did not constitute a good cause exception to bid protest procedures; an agent's error is legally attributable to its principal. GAO refused the protester's request for a conference on the matter of unfair treatment because it felt that no useful purpose would be served by such a conference. Accordingly, the prior dismissal of the protest was affirmed.